Editorial: What Egyptian revolution may mean for the Middle East and the U.S.

AP Photo/Ahmed AliEgyptians carry an army soldier in Tahrir Square Friday as they celebrate the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak.

The street-led revolution in Egypt is a moment of promise and instability for that country, the Middle East and the United States. The unanswered question — Will something like a functioning democracy follow last week’s resignation of President Hosni Mubarak? — looms as the most pressing concern.

Even so, Egypt’s democracy movement has sparked similar protests against other repressive regimes, including in Iran, Bahrain and Libya. News of the uprising even seeped through Chinese government censors, inspiring pro-democracy activists there.

In Egypt the military’s actions in coming weeks will be watched closely for signs that ruling authorities intend to make good on promises of reform and self-government. The complex concerns in Egypt should not obscure a few salient features of the Tahrir Square uprising. The first is the importance of free-flowing information to Egypt’s sizable youth population. The country’s leaders relied on the might of a tenuously loyal military. Young protesters relied on Facebook, Twitter and other modern communication avenues to foment dissent in a restless population.

The movement was reminiscent of protesters two years ago using electronic communications during Iran’s rigged presidential election. Those protests were brutally repressed. But Iran’s youth experienced the possibility of change. Events in Egypt should be read as a warning to every Middle Eastern dictator. Rapidly moving, free-flowing information is the bane of despots. The information revolution will inevitably invite political revolution.

A second notable feature of the revolution is the number of young people involved. A key figure in the Egyptian protest movement was Google marketing executive Wael Ghonim, who was imprisoned and later released by Mr. Mubarak. Demographics are not on the side of repression. Young people will demand and expect change.

For the time being, Egypt lives under the rule of the country’s Armed Forces Supreme Council, its military.

Mr. Mubarak’s chosen parliament has been dissolved. The constitution, which inevitably tilted power in Mr. Mubarak’s direction, has been suspended. The country’s provisional leaders have vowed elections within six months.

Factions within the country will vie for influence as a new constitution and power structure emerge. A big concern is the Muslim Brotherhood, a hard-line Islamic group that was a frequent target of the Mubarak regime but would be a disaster as a ruling
force.

The Brotherhood favors stoning adulterers, punishing gays and killing Muslims who defect from the faith. The Brotherhood wants to call into question the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, an act that would invite regional instability.

The scope of the Brotherhood’s influence is a matter of dispute. However, the group had 20 percent of parliamentary seats under Mr. Mubarak. It is clearly a force, one that should be taken seriously.

The administration of President Barack Obama sent muted and sometimes mixed messages as the Egyptian protests advanced, understandably so. The United States has considered Mr. Mubarak an ally of convenience, though not one with high standards. His ouster creates a power vacuum that will attract both the high-minded and the opportunistic.

Ultimately Mr. Obama made the right choice: To throw in with the cause of freedom, even with all the uncertainty it brings. That course, the best course, is anything but guaranteed, but siding with the Tahrir Square protests is consistent with American ideals and interests.

E-mail a letter to the editor for publication in print: pulse@grpress.com Please keep letters to less than 200 words and include your full name, home address and phone number.